A recent city council decision led by its rookie members may be risky for London, critics say

A generation after London politicians compared rural growth on the city’s borders to parasites and crushed it with a massive land annexation, a crop of council rookies has flipped that approach.

Was it a mistake?

That’s being asked by several keen city hall observers, including a former mayor, who believe it may have been a collective misstep to accept a rural neighbour’s rule-bending plans to vie with London for industrial investment.

Thames Centre’s contentious industrial land strategy, those critics warn, could undermine 20 years of city policy and millions in taxpayer spending.

But the nine first-term politicians who united to scrap a staff-backed appeal of Thames Centre’s move had another aim in mind.

They wanted to foster a co-operative relationship between London and its smaller regional neighbours.

Coun. Jared Zaifman, one of the nine, calls it the need for a “bigger, broader regional perspective (for) Southwestern Ontario.”

“From a planning policy perspective (Thames Centre’s plan) is not in keeping with provincial policy. There’s no argument about that,” Zaifman said.

“Whether we need to be the ones appealing it — I’m not sure that’s our place.”

Or, as fellow first-termer Josh Morgan put it during a debate on the issue: “I don’t think we’re in any position to be any sort of regional planning police.”

But some observers say that’s exactly what London has been since its 1993 annexation, one of the largest in its history, when it swallowed so much rural turf around it that the city nearly tripled in size to the same land area as Toronto.

One key driver was the city’s need for more industrial land, with then-mayor Tom Gosnell saying the city wouldn’t have the land to offer an automaker if one came along wanting to build a new assembly plant.

Another was what some politicians called “parasitic growth” on the city’s edges, especially commercial development — mainly along London’s Highway 401-area boundary with the former Town of Westminster — feeding off the city and siphoning away potential tax revenue from London.

London argued it was in the best position to service and manage growth on its edges, so much so the province ordered it to take far more land than it wanted because areas nearby wouldn’t be able to financially cope if the city only cherry-picked what it wanted.

One municipal affairs expert calls the recent council decision “a little troubling” given that history.

“In principle, I think the whole London situation since the big annexation is that development is supposed to take place in the city,” said Andrew Sancton of Western University’s local government studies program. “I would have thought London would fight to protect that.”

Thames Centre has stood by its move, with Mayor Jim Maudsley saying recently it can make its own decisions about industrial land and he couldn’t understand why the city only put up a fuss this year.

“It was brought to them in 2013 in a draft of our official plan, and we spoke to them about it,” he said last month. “It bothers me. We go through hours of painstaking discussion at council to do what is best for the municipality and region and now at the 11th hour they object. It frustrates me a little.”

Like all major planning matters, the issue is complex. Here are the essential details:

Thames Centre, which borders London on the east, and was one of the area hit by the 1993 annexation, plans to market 120 hectares of industrial land, enough to last it 60 years. None of it is serviced for water or sewage.

Provincial rules dictate communities only build up a 20-year supply; they also direct this kind of development to urban areas to avoid what one expert called “American-style sprawl.”

London recently approved buying 40 hectares of land at Veterans Memorial Parkway near the 401, just west of the spot along the 401 where Thames Centre is developing its industrial park — which, because it’s not serviced, may be cheaper than London’s and thus more attractive to buyers

City staff sought to appeal the Thames Centre plan to the province due to the planning issues and the potential environmental concerns around building up unserviced land.

City council voted 9-5 to drop the appeal, and clear the way for Thames Centre to move ahead. The nine votes were all first-term councillors.

The vote caught the attention of former mayor Joni Baechler, one of London’s foremost experts on planning matters.

While impressed overall by the new council — 11 of its 15 members are rookies — she was clear on this decision: it’s nice to be neighbourly, but it’s not wise when doing so could harm the carefully crafted industrial-land plan on which London has spent millions.

“It’s important to be good neighbours. But it’s more important to protect the city’s strategic direction,” said Baechler, who left politics after 15 years last fall.

“London has spent multitudes of millions on our industrial land strategy. It’s important for council to protect that strategy . . . otherwise you’re undermining future opportunities and you’re wasting taxpayer money.”

1988: Arguing it doesn’t have enough elbow room for growth, especially industry, city asks province to annex land from neighbouring London and Westminster Townships, capping a years-long border squabble.

This Week's Flyers

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.